2026:HHC:5875 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 129 of 2026 in LPA No. 105 of 2026 Decided on : 05.03.2026 State of H.P. and others ...Appellants Versus Niram Chand and another …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant(s): Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No. 129 of 2026 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by the affidavit of the official, delay of 193 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. LPA No. 105 of 2026 The order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.05.2025, passed in CWP No. 6477 of 2025, titled Niram Chand 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- vs. State of H.P. and others, reveals that the learned Single Judge has directed the State to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-5) in light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017 titled Sunder Singh vs. State of H.P. and others, Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022 titled Balo Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, and LPA No. 196 of 2022 titled Roop Lal vs. State of H.P. and others. 2. Perusal of the representation goes to show that the claim, as such, is for grant of pension on the basis of the notification dated 4th May, 2023 and, apparently, the petitioner was denied pension on the ground of non-completion of ten years of regular service. Reliance has been placed on Sunder Singh vs. State of H.P. (supra) for granting the said benefit. In such circumstances, the decision-making is to be done by the State. Therefore, rather than taking a decision itself, and keeping in view the law already laid down, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the same to be done within the prescribed period of four weeks. 3. The writ petition was, thus, very much maintainable for grant of mandamus, as the petitioner sought enforcement of the legal duty of the State to comply with and follow the earlier judgments and precedents on the issue. In such circumstances, we -3- do not find any plausible reason to entertain the present Letters Patent Appeal. 4. Keeping in view the above, the filing of this appeal is totally misconceived and, therefore, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 5th March, 2026 (Tarun)